Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).

...The controversy inadvertently revealed the extent to which state law now requires the holocaust to be taught in all Florida public schools.

...The imposed holocaust narrative is full of holes and contradictions in terms of who was killed and how, but it is impossible for genuine academics to critique it if they want to stay employed. Books like Wiesel's "Night" are largely works of fiction. The narrative exists to perpetuate the belief in Jewish suffering, which brings with it a number of practical advantages...

Holocaust guilt is used in the United States to counter any criticism of what Israel and Jewish groups are up to, as they use their wealth and access to power to corrupt America's institutions and drive the country to needless wars.

...Lest we forget, the holocaust industry operates everywhere in America, particularly in the education system.

"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

.
In the year 2003 German-Canadian Ernst Zundel was arrested in Canada and imprisoned on trumped up charges.
No-one in the public was allowed then — nor is allowed now — to know why but he was kept in solitary confinement and then extradited. The decision to do so was made in secret and the reasons remain a kept secret. But it is claimed the charges came under anti-terrorism laws and a Canadian judge ruled his activities a threat to national and international security.

Mr. Zündel's deportation was ordered under a rarely used security certificate, a process by which the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can provide information in secret sessions.

The Zündel defence team was not privy to the information, yet it was still required to convince Judge Blais that it was unreliable, otherwise Mr. Zündel would be deported to Germany to face a five-year prison term for the crime of denying the Holocaust.
In a response to Judge Blais' ruling, Peter Lindsay, Mr. Zündel's lawyer said in an interview:

“Is it justice to deny someone even a chance to question the intent or motive of politicians?
Is it justice to allow secret evidence and deny the person against whom the secret evidence is being used even an opportunity to challenge it in any real way?”

Readers of this post can ask themselves the same question: was that just? Was that even legal?

On February 24th 2005, Federal Court Justice Pierr Blais made the following judgement:

“Mr. Zündel's activities are not only a threat to Canada's national security
but also a threat to the international community of nations”.

Think about that for a moment. We don't know what those alleged activities were.
We are still NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW what those alleged activities were.
Yet we are expected to believe that somehow, a person famous for nothing more than successfully winning a five year long battle in the 1980's in Canadian courts for publishing details about WW2 history was “a threat to the international community of nations”!!

The question should be: 'what is really a threat to each individual's security and liberty worldwide'? Someone disseminating contrversial but fact-based historical information? Or governments and politicians bowing to pressure from Jewish organisations to treat individuals with draconian, quasi-legal and unjust judgements?

Ernst Zündel

And thus it was that after more than a year in solitary confinement, Ernst Zündel was extradited to Germany where he was immediately arrested and put on trial in a German court for the crime of questioning the details of ‘the Holocaust’ while living in Canada — in other words for daring to apply Historical revision to an ahistorical, legally protected, compulsory belief-system. And for doing so in his country of domicile where it is NOT a crime.

‘But how was that a crime committed in Germany’, a sane, reasonable person might ask.

Question: As it was not a crime to question that period of European history in Canada, how had he committed a crime in Germany?Answer: It was deemed a crime in Germany because Mr. Zündel had created a website in Canada containing details about his research that could be accessed from Germany!!!

This is the state of international law now.
A website containing historical information that does not break the law in the country in which you live, can be considered a crime in some other country. And your government can arrest you and transport you there to face a trial based upon secret allegations that you can not defend yourself against!!
This is what this pseudo-historical, compulsory belief-system has reduced us to.

Syvia Stolz was his Defence-lawyer for his trial in Germany.

Zundel’s trial judge in the case was Dr. Ulrich Meinerzhagen.

Ernst Zündel was accused and tried in still Allied-occupied Germany under post-war German laws laws forbidding “Incitement and the denigration of the memory of the deceased”.(Volksverhetzung und die Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener vorgeworfen.)

During the trial Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen announced the following:“It is completely irrelevant whether the Holocaust took place or not.
His DENIAL is a criminal offence in Germany and that is all that matters in this court.”

Which is equivalent to a medieval judge saying: “It is completely irrelevant whether witches exist or not, nor whether magical powers and witchcraft is even possible. Being a witch is a criminal offence in Baden-Württemberg and that is all that matters in this court.”

The trial result was inevitable. He was found 'guilty' and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
What is more — purely as a result of what in any other case would be regarded as just doing her job and defending her client — his defence lawyer Frau Stolz was also condemned to several years of imprisonment for the same crime as Ernst.

SUMMARY:
We can all now be accused of a thought-crime for stating unwelcome but factual truths that are considered offensive to some Jews. If we were born in a country that has laws outlawing publishing or discussing research regarding what has come to be called 'the Shoah', then we can be extradited there to face trial. We will not be permitted to conduct a robust defence, as that will be regarded as a further crime. And our conviction and imprisonment is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, if in your defence your lawyer demonstrates that your statements are factually true, they will also join you in prison.
Presumably if the judge does anything other than find you guilty, they will also have to be tried and imprisoned. They also are restricted because they can also not find that the accused statements are actually true and factually accurate, as that would be to commit the same crime as us the one being accused and our defence lawyer who is defending us!

And remember, the basis of these alleged thought crimes and all these imprisonments and prosecutions is this:“inciting hatred against an identifiable group”.

If we accept the holocaust industry's narrative, then Birkenau is the scene of the largest act of mass-murder in known history. So where are the signs of that, using forensic research? How do we explain the absence of these signs? If over a million people died/were killed there and were then cremated, where is the evidence commensurate with such a total?

As we all here should know by now, teeth are not destroyed by the cremation process, nor are all the bones. So that is over 32 million teeth and tons of ashes including bone fragments that should exist there somewhere. And as anyone who has visited Birkenau will know, the signs maintain that the cremains of all these alleged 'holocausted' people where thrown in small pools and in one large one called 'the pond of ashes'.

Its so obviously not credible that only a people in the grip of a collective delusion can explain why more people are not expressing disbelief, that these pools could contain all these alleged cremains.

'The pond of ashes' and other pools that visitors to Birkenau are told contain the cremains of approximately 1 million people.

Its so obviously not credible that only a people in the grip of a collective delusion can explain why more people are not expressing disbelief, that these pools could contain all these alleged cremains.

With this:

Do the jews have a history of telling big-lies about holocaust mass graves?

The Auschwitz “Ash Pond” Addendum

Additionally, and independent of The Holocaust Archaeology Hoax Challenges, a $500.00 reward is being offered to the first person who can prove that there is a preponderance of conclusively documented and substantiated scientific evidence that the so-called AUSCHWITZ ASH POND currently contains - at least 1 ounce of actual human ash - and a $500.00 reward for - at least 1 / 1,000 of 1% of the alleged disposed of cremains. Rules are essentially the same as those for - The $10,000.00 Holocaust Archaeology Hoax Challenge. Contact Greg Gerdes for details. (See contact information below.)

Q: Why are the delusional true-believers so incredulous when intelligent critical thinkers express rational skepticism of any questionable detail alleged within their so-called “proven holocaust”? Because there is much more that THE JEWS DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT AUSCHWITZ and about CREMATION.

In some circumstances it can be rationally assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be easily discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of evidence of its occurrence as proof of its non-occurrence.
Such is the case for the fraudulently alleged holocaust mass graves: No graves = No holocaust - simple as that.

In some circumstances it can be rationally assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be easily discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of evidence of its occurrence as proof of its non-occurrence.
Such is the case for the fraudulently alleged holocaust mass graves: No graves = No holocaust - simple as that.

Here is the brilliant introduction to the equally bright and devastating critical analysis of Mike King recently posted by Huntinger.
I hadn't seen this before.
It explains a method to deal with the usual deceitful and/or deeply delusional logic that even a supposed trained academic scholar employed to support the pseudo-history called 'the holocaust'.

JEWISH HOLOHOAX ‘SCHOLAR’ PUTS FOOT IN MOUTH [debating liars]

By Mike King

The sport of Judo teaches one how to use an adversary’s own weight and strength against him. There is as much of a philosophical component to the sport as there is an athletic.
The Judo response is to give way, to not meet force head-on, but to use the enemy’s force in your favour for the purpose of beating him.

As it is in Judo, so it when debating liars.
Whenever you can utilise a deceitful opponent’s own concessions to build your case and throw it right back at him; it deals a devastating blow from which he cannot recover. The harder he attacks, the stronger YOU become.

Use Judo moves on liars.

One thing you will notice about the professional liars of the Fake News and Fake Academia is that, when cornered, they will concede a point for strategic purposes, before following up with a quick “yeah-but” to hold up their argument. Those conceded points should never be allowed to pass for they are the basis of an effective “Judo” response.

For example; imagine that an accused car thief is confronted with evidence of his past record of stealing. Forced to concede the point, the thief will say: “Yes. It is true that I stole 7 cars over the past 5 years, but to suggest that I stole this particular car is ridiculous”.

We then press the thief on the fact that several witnesses just saw him driving the same color, make & model of the stolen car in question. He again concedes: “Yes. It is true that I was seen driving a vehicle fitting that exact description, but that was a rented car which coincidentally matched the description of the car that you claim I just stole”.

When challenged on his ability to rent a car when he has no credit cards, the artful liar, without skipping a beat, retorts: “Yes. It is true that I have no credit cards, but that’s because my cousin, who just moved to Brazil, let me use his credit card”.

Now, let us review what we have just learned from our thieving friend, as carelessly confirmed from his own big mouth!

1. He is in fact a repeat car thief.

2. He was in fact driving a vehicle fitting the description of the recently stolen car.

3. He did not possess a credit card, which would have been needed had he really rented a similar car, as claimed.

Those concessions are known as “hard data points.” The rest is just fluff. Considered individually, none of those concessions will clinch the prosecution’s case. But taken cumulatively, such self-admitted facts begin to paint the accused liar into a very tight corner. That’s logical Judo for you. And it is precisely why Defense Lawyers advise that suspects should always remain silent when questioned by police. You know, the so-called “Miranda Rights” warning; “Anything you say can and will be used against you.”

With this logical principle in mind, let us similarly corner one of one of Holohoaxianty’s High Priests, Timothy Ryback, by using the accumulation of his own 2004 written concessions, as published by the oh-so-“prestigious” Wall Street Urinal, against him.
This is ‘gonna’ be fun!

Read the rest at RODOH (very helpfully formatted and illustrated by Huntinger for easy reading) here.
Or else here

"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

"In fifty years or so people will wonder about the holocaust
and they will wonder how a people who could conqueor space
and could send rockets to the moon and to Mars,
could believe in a story that was so manifestly technically absurd."
— Jürgen Graf

missing Jews have nothing to do with ovens or gas chambers or Vergasungskeller documents.
...

Looking at all of the evidence and what is evidenced and not evidenced to have happened, improves our knowledge of what happened inside the kremas.

I can't find evidence of where all the Jews went. Therefore any problems Mattogno or Rudolf have found magically disappear and the magical ovens and gas chambers are therefore proven.

Nessie can pretend that he is allowed to use the above premise about missing Jews all he wants, but it's still a red herring to the discussions of:

1. how powerful the ovens really were
2. what the cyanide levels really are in the rooms
3. what the documents really say about showers and Vergasungskeller
4. what disinfection buildings were in fact properly ventilated
etc.

The real reason Nessie keeps bringing up untraced Jews is because he can't deal with the critiques of Mattogno and Rudolf directly. As an example, he can't deal with Rudolf's attacks on Green and Markiewicz. If Nessie COULD have shown any errors on Rudolf's part in response to those two men, Nessie would have done so by now. He hasn't. Because he can't.

Anyone who believes they know with certainty what happened during WW2, the Aktion Reinhardt policy and the Final Solution of the Jewish Question can be fairly described as a true-believer.
All this happened during what is called — when it suits — 'the fog of war'.
So whether you believe six million Jewish people were deliberately exterminated principally in gas chambers or whether you believe no-one was ever gassed, I believe your certainty is a self-delusion.
I.e. delusions of certainty apply to both 'believers' and 'deniers'

To understand what went on at the time — AND what is going on NOW in the ongoing debate — we first have to understand and factor in our human nature.
Humans are meaning-making machines. We don't do well with confusion. So we look for patterns and 'meanings'. We create 'certainties'. That's how we can see shapes in clouds and constellations in dots of light in the night sky.
Much of the time that has been to our benefit as a species. But to reach as accurate an understanding as possible — IN ANY SUBJECT — usually takes training over years before the investigation can really begin. And usually people specialise their expertise into increasingly niche areas in order to achieve that.

Yet now with the internet some people have become adept at making ostensibly credible but actually loony-tunes connections, pictures, conclusions and scenarios and have become popular and well-known. That also takes some years of training and honing of skills.
Alex Jones and David Icke have made careers out of doing it. The first imo is a deliberate, self-serving deceiver and the other a genuine but self-deluded crank.

For ascertaining truth first requires the acknowedgement and self awareness to concede our ultimate unknowingness.
If someone can not begin an investigation from that starting point they will certainly and automatically be prone to confirmation bias.

To arrive at clarity out of confusion, ignorance, misinformation and obfuscation there are no other options than these two imho:
1. Do research and testing yourself.
2. Trust in authorities and read their research and conclusions.
A combination of the two is not only possible but is the only practical alternative for the vast majority of us.

'Vibing it' and going by a gut-feeling, if you haven't spent decades doing some of option number 1 is not really going to suffice imho.
Nor is totally relying on authorities without doing any research and testing of your own.

CONCLUSION:
The key to making sense of all research and reading of authorities is applying the empirical paradigm's test of falsifiabilty.
Revealingly and unfortunately, I have never yet come across a single true-believer in the 'Holocaust' narrative who even understands what that is.

"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

.THE TWO TYPES OF 'BELIEF'
Continuing the idea (from here) of how many belief-systems often have two versions:

A. there is often a complex, nuanced version of a 'belief' understood by the academics and by the elite in the heirarchy of the belief’s 'priesthood'.
B. and then there is often a simplistic 'pantomime', b/w, 'good versus evil', simplified version which appeals to and is believed and passionately defended by the masses, many of low intelligence.

The more nuanced, complex version of the 'belief-system' is only admitted and discussed among the academics and elites in the heirarchy of 'belief'. Such discussion occurs 'behind closed doors'. I.e. it is not for public consumption.
Occassionally someone from the elite hierarchy will break ranks and make public some point of obvious reality. Then the fallout is huge, the emotional disturbance caused amongst the 'lay' public is considerable, and the 'villain' who shook the faith of the believers is widely castigated.

E.g. The Bishop of Durham.
In Britain in the 1980's a British Bishop of the Anglican Church publically announced a more adult, realistic approach to core Christian beliefs':

For the 'panto-version' believers of Christianity this was like telling infants it may not be Santa on a flying sleigh pulled by a magical red-nosed reindeer bringing them presents at Christmas.
They experienced shock! Horror. Outrage!

Pantomime narratives have an icon of evil
In a pantomime version of a 'narrative', the 'bad guy' is 'performed' with an over-the-top, malevolence and the tiny tots are encouraged to hiss and boo whenever this icon of evil comes on stage.
The hero/heroine is usually a male character but performed by a female actress. He/she is encouraged to be vocally supported by the infantile audience.

Aladdin, Jack and the beanstalk, Sleeping beauty, Peter Pan, etc. In these performances for immature minds, there is a powerful but 'wicked' character and there is a hero/heroine. The dichotomy between these two characters, between good and evil is made stark. There are no grey areas.

The masses have been fed a 'panto' version of WW2.
For the vast majority of people who were indoctrinated as children with this victor-version of WW2 history, Hitler represents the 'satanic' character: the ogre, the 'wicked witch', the bad giant, the icon of evil. They have been programmed to ‘hiss and boo’ his character. For them he possesses no virtue: he can possess no redeeming qualities. Any attempt at a more realistic, 'mature' appraisal is not permitted and anyone who attempts that is demonised as a 'neo-Nazi'.
In this 'panto' version of history, this icon-of-evil character is supported by his evil minions called 'Nazis', or 'fascists', or ‘the SS’, or 'the Gestapo', who also in the minds of the simple public can possess no redeeming qualities nor virtues.
For an example of how this infantalised dichotomous version of history is believed and perpetuated throughout society, notice how in books and TV documentaries Hitler's closest associates in government and the military are routinely referred to as his ‘henchmen'.

And as another example of how the vast mass of humanity have accepted this ridiculously simplistic understanding of WW2 and Adolf Hitler, check out the wikipedia article on Hitler. Educated editors — including a headmaster/headmistress of a school (Dianna) — have repeatedly over many years, been arguing and voting on the 'talk' page over whether Hitler is the most evil man ever. (Check the archived discussions if you want to read some of them.)
Academics are quoted there as authorities, and who believe nonsense such as this: “Adolf Hitler would win honours, hands down, as the most evil man who ever lived, and the ultimate model of human wickedness...”
Some even repeat the literally absurd and quasi-religious idea that Hitler was the 'incarnation of evil':
One wiki editor quoted John Lukacs who in an encyclopedia (Britannica) made the following statement: “...it is not likely that Hitler’s reputation as the incarnation of evil will ever change”.

Which demonstrates that if a population en masse is indoctrinated from early childhood with a simplistic, emotive, infantile, 'panto' version of reality — and in this case of history — then naive, historically-infantilised people will believe it into adulthood.

And this also demonstrates why if the whole of society worldwide accepts this unreal, exaggerated and infantile panto version of history, that will explain why it will reinforce this naive, pseudo-historical belief through participation in collective theatricals (memorial ceremonies), buildings of worship' (holocaust museums), and passion plays (TV holocaust documentaries and hollywood holocaust weepies).

Thus it is that in the case of WW2 and 'THE Holocaust' narrative, the vast majority of people only know and therefore will ONLY accept a discussion based upon this over-simplified, good vs evil, panto version of the historical facts.

And because their 'belief' in it is emotional NOT rational, they will go to ridiculous lengths to defend and support that infantalised 'belief' system. Including violence individually (the public), and persecution collectively (the state).

"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous